Here you will learn the justification behind the CommuCorp vision. The explanations will be found before in the initial essay, entitled The Formal Essay on CommuCorp which essentially outlines the basic premise for CommuCorp. If you would like this essay in .doc Format, click here.

The Formal Essay On CommuCorp

By Sean Duffy, CEO

The CommuCorp vision is a radically new idea that is fit for the new millennium. As Communism writhes in its death throes and Capitalism extends its influence over the world, for better or worse, many have come to believe that the lofty ideals of communion and jointed work for the betterment of society or the members of a community are dying as well. Many have come to believe, as a result of past conflict, that the systems of Capitalism and Communism cannot coexist, let alone work together. The resulting horrors of both systems are well documented, as well as the totally impersonal nature of either, as paradoxical each system needs a certain level of creativity, but stifled individuality to function. In this world of darkness, despair, corporate malevolence, and television infomercials, a singular idea shines like a beacon, and could stand to revolutionize the world itself.

Marx pointed out that in the capitalist system, any business entity would be forever in need to shrink its work force while maximizing product output, to the point where the business entity becomes detrimental to society, or self destructs. The societal purpose of any business entity is not to make a profit for itself, but to provide steady work for members of the society, by standing as an infrastructure for commercialism. It is the internal goal for the business entity to maximize profits for the select few at the top. When these two purposes conflict, those in control of the business entity obviously choose what is best for themselves, leaving the so-called “little guy” at the unemployment office. The solution Communism tried to provide, was the destruction of the business entity, and direct control of output of the workforce by the government.

Unfortunately for the billions of people who lived under this system, the attempt was gravely flawed from the beginning. Despite Utopian aspirations, the Communist system was still riddled by the very real problems of corruption, greed, and a lack of motivation. Also, the confrontational, and pro-revolutionary stance of the leaders of the movement set it negatively on the world stage. In the end, it is most likely best that the primary leading nation of Communism collapsed under the stress of conflict with individualist societies. The remaining Communist nations have perverted the primary values and in turn trampled other worthy considerations. This is a shame, considering how there are other aspects to the human life than the economic one, despite you’re your television will tell you. However, this by no means invalidates the core ideals that have real merit in the societal standpoint.

Capitalism is a system of individual competition, where it may become advantageous for people to group together their different talents resources to accomplish goals and gain an edge within the system. The competition is supposed to be a friendly one, the type that inspires innovation and motivates the individual to his or her maximum potential. It is a common observation then that the American system is of course, not capitalism at all. It has morphed into something beyond capitalism, that has taken the worst qualities with it, and shed those redeeming qualities that allowed it to shine and overcome its foe, the morphed version of Communism discussed earlier. Perhaps it is the absent of a truly competing ideological system that has caused this degradation, or perhaps it truly was the natural evolutionary course for capitalism.

There are even some who would challenge the assertion that the capitalist system has been changed or replaced by something “worse.” Allow for rebuke to this. In its beginnings, capitalism was as described above, a logical step away from the pure governmental or theocratical control of the people, towards a mode of economic individualism. In other words, it was for all intents and purposes, an empowering move towards freedom. Fast-forward to our twenty-first century, and you have something that could not be called empowering at all. You have the mass exploitation of a foreign workforce, and the never-ending denial and shift of blame by those who benefit from these exploitations. Ironically, the exploitation of this foreign workforce is most heavily denied by, and a result of, those who would claim to be exploited and oppressed in America! Indeed, the lower class American populace is that which is found to be the direct driving force behind the support for the brands that notably make use of sweatshop labor. The most prominent example would be the nearly fanatical brand-loyalty maintained toward Nike in so-called “Ghetto” communities, as those within show economic status by purchasing the aforementioned company’s overpriced goods. There are so many levels of irony present in this case, that one would nearly be ready to ignore the domestic breakdown of the system.

The rise of multinational corporations has actually been what truly has caused the morph. These corporations, which move more money than many of the world’s nations, hold little to no loyalty to any populace in the world, and as such are freed from the societal obligations to provide steady work to any one group of people. All they need be concerned with now are the profit margins and the image projected to the masses. Friendly competition turns to cutthroat competition, where total dominance is the goal and logic has been completely abandoned. Morals are a thing of the past, and innovation is instantly copyrighted. The individual is no longer even rewarded for their innovation, unless they are willing to brave the cutthroat competition and attempt to create a product or sell an idea while holding it as close to themselves as possible, only to, in all likelihood, release the idea for a sum of money to one of the multinationals. The truth no longer matters, and as people see, corporation after corporation show their true natures as they no longer even bother to circumvent the law; just outright break it. When caught, those in charge face insignificant penalties, and those who were doing their jobs legally are those most punished, especially if they owned stock in the company.

There is a growing underground backlash against these corporations, and justly so, but that is not the issue to be discussed here. The issue is the idea of CommuCorp, the theoretical “Communist Corporation,” and what may be the solution to every single problem that has been discussed in short or at length to this point.

The CommuCorp model is radical, but simple to understand. Take the basic idea of communism (equal splitting of the benefits and penalties of a society’s work and decisions) and set up a corporation around it, that will then function competitively in the dynamic global Capitalist economy.

The benefits for successful implementation after careful planning make the CommuCorp model one which may serve to allow progress economically and societally by taking the best examples of the world’s previous ideas, and combining them to ward off the problems either system standing on its own may face. CommuCorp wages would be nearly identical for any full-time position within the company, if not wholly identical. Wages would depend completely on the company’s ability to perform, with perhaps some sort of buffer or cache built in, in case of unexpected market changes. This is justified by the recognition of a Corporation’s need for every position down to the mundane to be filled for it to operate, rather than just management. The benefits would of course be high loyalty of employees, as well as a vested stake by the employees to do their work well and find innovative solutions to problems, so as to benefit themselves. Not only are good work and hard work paid off, but so is teamwork. The company would outsource none of its work to contractors, but would hold its employees to contract. Even if they did “quit” their job, they would merely be given the choice to take up another position within the company, so as their talents can be retained.

The company would always be looking to expand its workforce, as the doctrine of CommuCorp is that every new person brought in will be of direct value enough to help the company, rather than cause a drop in profit margins. To ensure this is so, and to ensure that current employees maintain this standard, rigorous internal performance reviews would be required. Also, corruption will not be able to flourish, as any deception will instantly hurt all employees, as such an environment of honesty would naturally win out. Just to make sure, accurate and complete records of every business transaction, down to the smallest supply acquisition, will be confirmed and by rigorous auditing. Major decisions in the direction of the company may even be allowed to be decided democratically, further fostering trust with the employees. When the employees are loyal, and the company is solid, only then can stable growth be made to capture an outside market and maintain it. By allowing these practices to be well known, CommuCorp would gain positive publicity and major brand recognition. This model would work for almost any business, regardless of the end product!

Such is the idea I have had. It is a shame I don’t have the capital or product idea at this time to implement. But hey, it’s just an idea, and when has an idea ever changed the world?